Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Atheists, Genesis, and Facebook

Scripturosity is my vehicle for sharing the beautiful compatibility of world discovery and experience with the ancient record preserved in the Bible (reference “About” tab). My wife has used her savvy in the communication medium of Facebook to serve up my articles to her growing community of “friends” as well as various “pages” whose name suggests a potential interest in or objection to my newly published topic. From time to time, a “comment” dialogue will be generated from an article that is so profound that it is worth reviving for the benefit of the readers. Such is the case now.

After promoting my recent article, “Evidence of God,” to her friends and usual list of pages-with-a-cause, Sheila decided to post it on a couple of pages identified as atheistic. A remarkable dialogue erupted that aptly represents the shameful information deficit left by our esteemed institutions of learning and worship.

The first to respond was Brandon. Brandon is what I would regard as a true seeker – a seeker that is the product of respected, academic influences and a painfully anemic church. As you will see from his testimony, he was drawn away from the church and converted to atheism.

Brandon – “The problem with the arguments being made by people like the good pastor (he assumed that I was a member of the clergy) in the article is that they rely heavily on scripture from the bible to underline their premise. That presents a problem because the bible is the claim of god (sic), not the evidence of god. In other words, the pastor’s argument presumes the existence of an entity that has not been proven to exist at all. The argument is based on faith and personal incredulity, not any type of evidence that can be observed, tested, and verified by anyone that wishes to see such evidence.

The pastor makes reference to other works as well, but those works are also heavily faith-based and presume an existence that hasn’t been proven to exist in reality. It would be a good argument if it didn’t rely so heavily on disputed claims and presumptions.

I was a devout Christian for over 20 years. You will find that most people that are atheist have similar stories to mine. Many of us grew up with the church, worshipped God, followed the teachings of Jesus, and lived our lives in service to him (sic). I was that way for a long time. There was a time when anyone that had the audacity to question the existence of God was considered a ‘malignant fool’ by me, because nothing could be possible without God.

But, then I began looking at the world around me and all over and questions started sneaking into my head. I looked to the bible for answers, but mostly what I found was either obsolete or extremely vague. So, I started asking my pastor and other pastors and various other people of the cloth my questions. And the answers I received were either also vague or left me more confused than I was before I asked the questions. So, I decided to do research myself.

The more I researched my questions, the more doubt crept into my mind. I went, in a matter of weeks, from being rock solid in my faith, to incredibly shaky in my faith. With continued research and reflection, I came to the realization that god wasn’t an actual entity, but a manifestation of something that had been drilled into me from the time I was born. I realized that god didn’t create man; man created God. Man created God to be a catchall for explanations that weren’t understood at the time. God didn’t center around eternal life, but mortal death.

It’s all an illusion. It’s all a fairy tale. It’s complete and total fiction. And I bought it hook, line, and sinker for years. Christianity is just as big of a hoax as every other religion.

That being said, if I were asked if I thought there could be some powerful entity somewhere that could possess qualities that humans would consider “god-like,” I would have to say, I don’t know. I think it’s likely there are other species in the universe and some of them may be more advanced than us, I don’t know. But, I do not believe that the Christian God exists, the Muslim God exists, the Jewish God exists, or any other man-made construction of religion has merit to propose the existence of any God of scripture from a position of faith.”

The next contributor was Kyle. Kyle was converted to Christianity from a churchless upbringing. The following is his response and testimony to Brandon.

Kyle – “Brandon, I respect your experience. I think what is a shame is when there are people of faith who criticize those who don’t have faith in what they believe. That, to me, is the biggest crime or falling-out of our generation. You and I have had two different experiences on this soil. You mentioned that you were brought up in the church and were brainwashed. I didn’t go to a church service until I was 19 years old. I didn’t meet God in church. I actually met him (sic) or had my first interaction with God right after my 6^th brain surgery in my early teens. I understand that it’s hard to believe what I am saying is true since it was my experience and from my view.  If anyone has reason to second-guess the existence of God, I think I would be one of those people.

I have witnessed so many make statements like, ‘If God exists, why does he allow bad things to happen to good people?’ I was one of those good people that bad things were happening to. I even grew bitter for a time. I didn’t understand why God would allow such suffering to come to me like he did. I can tell you that I fully understand your statement about being shaky in your faith. I questioned a lot of things much like Job did. In fact, I often feel like Job from the old testament (sic). Now, as far as my experience, I felt God was pursuing me through my trials. He was using my challenges to gain my attention. For me, it wasn’t the afterlife; it was more about this life. The future I had wanted couldn’t be accomplished now. My plans were changing and I never asked them to change. If he really cared, he would have kept me from going through what I was going through (15 brain surgeries in 3 years and subsequent PTSD).

The only reason, when the storms of life hit me, I was able to stand and not fall away or give up was because of the engagement I had with Jesus, the Christ – “this Christian God.”

But, let me tell you something that I do respect about you. Many people are so determined to make you see things their way; they don’t care about their approach. So, my hat is off to you. Thank you for sharing your story and I wish you the best, my friend.”

When Sheila told me that there was some chatter on one of the atheist, Facebook pages in response to my article, I asked her to copy and email the dialogue to me (I don’t have a Fb page). After reading in amazement, I sent her a response to post back. The following is that reply and the subsequent volley.

Marc @ Scripturosity – “Kyle and Brandon, this is the kind of civility that is often lacking in the debate of worldviews. I want to commend both of you for an intellectual and productive exchange of ideas and experience.

Brandon, keep in mind that Scripturosity makes no apologies for its philosophical axiom (hence the name). You may also be interested to know that I am not a pastor, but an executive at an oil and gas exploration company. We have to rely heavily on science, particularly geology, in our various exploration and production endeavors. Approaching the evidence from an historical perspective that aligns with the ancient narrative of Genesis has no effect on our observational conclusions or practical successes. There is no intellectual deficit or practical disadvantage to a biblical worldview.

Sure, I am a man of faith. But so are you. Predisposition biases both of us.  If you take my article to the conclusion, you will see my explanation of this claim (see Scripturosity article “Evidence of God”).

Your testimony is quite profound, but not uncommon. The difficulty that many good people have reconciling the world around us with the preserved Revelation is primarily because of a misinterpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Because of your background, let me challenge you re-evaluate your worldview in light of an historical Genesis rather than the allegorical designation often assigned to its detail of early earth events. Take some time to read my 5 part article series entitled “Where Did the Billions of Years Come From” (Part 1,  2,  3,  4,  5).

My only point is there may be another way to look at this thing and it just happens to reconcile beautifully with purpose and redemption.

Kyle, your journey has been remarkable. I appreciate your candor regarding thoughts of innocent suffering and a good God. I have a 3 part article series in Scripturosity entitled “Innocent Suffering and a Loving God.” Let me encourage you to check it out and feel free to share with me your thoughts in the blog comments (Part 1,  2,  3).”

Brandon – “Marc, I read your article on the “billions of years.” Let me say that I respect your position and that your article is well written and certainly thought provoking to be sure. Thank you for showing it to me.

I still remain unconvinced. However, I will give your position additional consideration, particularly as it pertains to Genesis as I find that aspect of your premise fascinating. I have not considered Genesis from that perspective and in the course of due diligence, I should attempt to understand where you are coming from instead of just dismissing your position out of hand.

I shall give you another opinion soon.”

Marc – “Thanks Brandon. I admire your spirit of honest inquiry.

Risking information overload – you may find my articles “Who Wrote Genesis” (Parts 1  &  2) and “How to Read Genesis” (Parts 1  &  2) helpful in your research.”

Kyle – “Brandon, in regards to seeing things through your point of view (even though I haven’t walked in your shoes), I have been on the other side or on the side of believing, at one point, some things that I can no longer validate to be true. Again, my experience and research led me to change my point of view and adopt faith in my life. I, like Marc, am a logical thinker. So, that is why I have respect for others who use logic.”

At this point another atheist entered the conversation. But unlike Brandon, Josh was an unreserved scoffer.

Josh – “Kyle, I’d like to ask what non-ad hawk (sic) logic do you use to believe in god. It’s simple. If you erased your memory (and this is impossible) to try on the world with a blank, logical approach, without any argument, you would more likely be an atheist. Unless you can somehow say logically how you can come to the conclusion of god, I find it hard to believe that you are being logical. Marc, why are people allowed to have different interpretations of the bible? Why would god make people who have the freewill to interpret the bible as they deem fitting? It’s an illusion because of preference.”

Kyle – “Josh, you have no idea what you say. It appears to me that you are more interested in arguing than you are in a real debate where two people come together to share their opinions and show mutual respect. As for memory (after 18 brain surgeries), in some aspects of my working memory or short-term memory, it is a blank slate for me each day. Josh, you are young and engaged and for that I commend you. However, if you are really seeking the truth, do it with respect for others.”

Marc – “Josh, interestingly, you accuse Kyle of ad hoc logic and then make an ad hoc claim yourself regarding the worldview tendency of a blank cultural and moral slate. In fact, I make the point in the Scripturosity article that kicked off this discussion (“Evidence of God”), that there is a “candle” inherent to humanity that gives everyone a nudge toward the Divine. One must suppress or snuff this light to peacefully coexist with a conscience apart from God. The proof is there. Only you can settle this with yourself. If you are satisfied, in the quiet of your pillow-pondering, that your intellect has honestly and adequately reconciled with your conscience, then stay on your present path. But if the spark still flickers, seek on.

Concerning your observation of biblical interpretation, sadly there is a lot of truth to that. Some seekers approach Scripture for the purpose of rationalizing a philosophical or practical predisposition. We should all leave our biases at the binding. Just as science is dependent on sound methodological principle, so is literary interpretation based on a sound hermeneutic.”

I know this piece was longer than is recommended for the blogosphere, but I thought it was important to demonstrate the real-world importance of coming to grips with an historical Genesis (see Scripturosity article series “An Historical Genesis – Why Does It Matter” Parts 1,  2,  3). Brandon promised to reconsider the faith of his youth because of it; Kyle can assign context to his suffering from it; and with it Josh can be reasonably challenged that he may have settled too quickly.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Evidence of God?

Atheists are having a field day with a recent Youtube video-clip from a debate between Eric Hovind (creationist) and Bernie Dehler (secular humanist) at Portland State University. The highlight is a question posed by Bernie’s son, a sixth grader, who asked for Eric to produce evidence for God. “How do you know that God exists” was essentially the question. Eric responded with an appeal to logic suggesting that unless you know everything you cannot be sure of anything. Therefore it is irrational to discount the presence of God. After watching the clip and witnessing the difficulty Eric had making his point, I began to wonder how I would answer the same question.

The answer, I believe, is quite simple though intensely contemplative and personal. The best place to start is a review of the 3 endowments at Creation’s finale – The Image, The Breath, and The Mandate. In these we can begin to appreciate our purpose in and sense the anticipation of the great cosmic symphony.

In the 5 days and several hours preceding man’s entrance, the creative episodes were initiated with impersonal mandates such as “Let there be…Let the waters be gathered…let the dry land appear…Let the waters bring forth…and Let the earth bring forth.”

Then, for the first time, creation gets personal. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Genesis 1:26a).” This endowment signals the Creator’s original intent for man.

John MacArthur expounds on the significance of divine image in his book The Battle for the Beginning.

“Above all, the image of God can be summed up by the word personhood. We are persons. Our lives involve relationships. We are capable of fellowship…We know what it is to share thoughts, convey and discern attitudes, give and take friendship, perceive a sense of brotherhood, communicate ideas, and participate in experiences with others.”

I think Henry Morris gives the best defense of human purpose in his book Many Infallible Truths.

“Communication and fellowship between man and God not only are possible but must actually have been a part of God’s very purpose in creation…since this is the ultimate consummation toward which time is moving, then there can be no doubt that this was God’s primeval purpose when time began. He created men for fellowship with Himself.”

The inevitable result of the obvious compatibility was fellowship.

Another unique endowment was The Mandate from the Creator to fill and subdue (1:28). Sometimes referred to as the Dominion Mandate, this declaration clearly establishes mankind as Creation’s superior.

The Bible presents man as the epicenter of God’s creative power and genius, charged with its mastery. “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under His feet (Psalm 8:6).”

This is by no means a license to abuse the earth and its creatures, but rather a sanction for careful responsibility in management.

Henry Morris addresses our sovereign assignment this way in his commentary The Genesis Record.

“The cultural mandate, as some have called it, is clearly a very expressive figure of speech for, first, intense study of the earth (with all of its intricate processes and complex systems) and, the, utilization of this knowledge for the benefit of earth’s inhabitants, both animal and human. Here is the primeval commission to man authorizing both science and technology as man’s most basic enterprises relative to the earth.”

It is the endowment of The Breath, however, that is key to evidential witness of the Divine. In my attempt to rationalize the uniqueness of The Breath, I originally posed that it must have been the particular exercise that made man eternal giving him the ability to navigate concepts beyond his time-space-matter existence (see Scripturosity article “Mankind – Favored Not Fortunate”).

But there was a flaw in that supposition. If death had not yet intruded the Creation (Romans 5:12), then all creatures would have had eternal intent in the beginning. What, then, did the breath of God uniquely signify of man in the “very good” Creation?

Genesis 2:7 chronicles that “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

There are two Hebrew words in this verse that warrant definitive clarity. The first is nephesh translated “living soul” here. This is the same word used to describe the compatibility of all creatures with earth’s biosphere. It has also been explained as consciousness. By biblical comparison and cross-referencing, it is technically referring to that which bleeds and breathes (see Scripturosity article “Plant-ing Seeds of Doubt”). The other word is neshamah which is translated “breath of life.” While all conscious creatures “brought forth” from the impersonal creative mandates processed oxygen from their environment for functionality, none of them received the neshamah – the breath from God. This was given only to man. One commentator referred to it as the Divine spark.

Could this blast of pure Spirit, while initiating the nephesh or conscious elements of his existence, also been the primordial endowment of man’s conscience – his unique co-knowledge with God?

Proverbs 20:27 articulates that “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.”

The young philosopher, Elihu defended his qualification to intervene by telling Job, “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration (neshamah) of the Almighty giveth them understanding (Job 32:8).”

In the context of “the beginning,” John the Apostle wrote, “In Him (God the Son) was life; and the life was the light of men…That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:4,9).”

The great Apostle Paul wrote of a specific human reality that makes all men accountable before the holy Judge of heaven despite excuses of ignorance. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).”

I propose that it was The Breath of God that enlivened man’s essence with the innate ability, yea necessity, to connect with the Divine. While man has a free will to act in harmony with or resistance to this conscience, God has, nevertheless, given every child of Adam’s race a divine nudge toward Himself. This is why all men are “without excuse (Rom. 1:20).” It is this internal “candle” or spirit-connectedness with the Creator that shines on the natural world and it’s First Cause.

My answer to the skeptic or seeker appealing to sense or reason in the pursuit or denial of God’s presence is that the evidence is within them. Every individual is endowed with a compass that points the way to true North – a candle to dispel the shadows of error.

The best evidence to the atheist that there is a God is the intellectual and emotional energy consumed in snuffing this inherent light. Be honest with yourself in a moment of sincere introspection and retrace your steps toward naturalism. How did you get here? Did you have to deny any premonition of purpose along the way? Did your intellect eventually overcome your conscience at the feet of academia (see Scripturosity article “Conscience and Intellect”)? Are you satisfied that you have not been influenced by agenda-driven zealots (see Scripturosity article “Intellectual Invention”)? Have you ever given yourself the intellectual latitude to observe and consider the evidence from a paradigm that invites the supernatural and aligns with your essence (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”)?

What it boils down to is the direction of one’s faith. Faith is not exclusive to proponents of the supernatural. Faith is requisite to a naturalistic cosmogony as well (see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 5”). The worldview disparity is not in the evidence, but rather in the axiom – the philosophical starting point from which the evidence is observed (see Scripturosity article “Fact and Theory”). Creationists presuppose the history of earth and humanity as chronicled in the book of Genesis; while evolutionists regard every observation through the notion of deep time and the doctrine of geologic uniformity (see Scripturosity article series “Deep Time Warp” – Part 1 & Part 2). These initial assumptions shape the direction of every interpretation. To decry faith is either open ignorance or pure hypocrisy.

Before one can reject a Creator or a redeeming Sovereign, he must first deny the very essence of his own humanity. Does God exist? Perhaps the better question is – Should anyone really have to ask?

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Genesis in Job (Part 2)

                      The Curse

Beyond its allusions to Creation (see Scripturosity article Genesis in Job – Part 1), the next reference to the primeval history of Genesis remarkably detailed in the book of Job is the Fall of Man and nature’s Curse.

There is no way to intellectually reconcile faith in a good and loving God with the suffering that so indelibly defines our world without an intrinsic understanding of the cause for nature’s groaning.

A naturalistic explanation of human emergence is that death and misfits and suffering and mutations eventually brought about man. The biblical explanation of life’s inherent pain and misery is that man brought death. “Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men…(Romans 5:12).”

According to the Bible, suffering is a remnant phenomenon of the Curse placed on the creation at the time of Adam’s sin. His disobedience would be shown to have implications far more reaching than his own mortality. Man’s obedience to God had been key to the preservation of Paradise. Now perfection became flawed and innocence condemned. All of creation was cursed with mankind because of mankind.

John Calvin wrote the following concerning the curse and what we see in nature today…

“The Lord…determined that his anger should, like a deluge, overflow all parts of the earth, that wherever man might look, the atrocity of his sin should meet his eyes. Before the fall, the state of the world was a most fair and delightful mirror of the divine favour and paternal indulgence towards man. Now, in all the elements, we perceive that we are cursed. And although the earth is still full of the mercy of God (Psalm 33:5), yet at the same time appear manifest signs of his dreadful alienation from us, by which, if we are unmoved, we betray our blindness and insensibility.”

It is fascinating to find in the writings of Job, a keen awareness and comprehension of creation’s Curse.

“Cursed is the ground for thy sake,” said the Lord to Adam, “Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee (contrasting the previously cooperative earth that he dressed and kept)…In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Gen. 3:17-19).”

Job ended his discourse with his “comforters” with a reminder of the Curse’s strangle-hold on their environment. “Let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley (31:40).”

Earlier he prays within earshot of the others, “Remember, I beseech Thee, that Thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt Thou bring me into dust again (10:9)?”

Elihu sarcastically advised with a similar acknowledgement, “Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment…If He set His heart upon man, (or) if He gather unto Himself His spirit and His breath (Gen.2:7); All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust (Job 34:10-15).”

Job references the Curse and the futility of protecting your offspring from its effects in 14:1-4. In protest of the friend’s insistence of his guilt based solely upon the tragic turn of circumstances, Job recounts of the testimony of old, “Man that is born of woman is few of days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not… Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

Job had a remarkable grasp of the sentence of sorrow placed upon woman at the time of the Fall (Gen.3:16).

Woman’s curse was an engagement of sorrow. There is something very interesting; however, about the words translated “sorrow” in verse 16. They actually represent two different Hebrew words.

The first sorrow, the sorrow that is to be “greatly multiplied,” is defined by Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon as “pain” or “toil” and specifically “of travail.”

The second “sorrow” (“…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…”) is a different word. It is defined (B-D-B) similarly as “pain, hurt, toil,” also noting travail but it points out that the same word is found in Proverbs 10:22. This passage is contrasting sorrow as the antithetical reality to the Lord’s blessing. There is no allusion to or connection to physical pain at all. This word in its very essence is probably best defined by Ungers Bible Dictionary as “grief arising from the privation of some good we actually possessed.”

The “sorrow” that was to be “greatly multiplied” is descriptive of the physical pangs of childbirth. The second “sorrow” of Genesis 3:16 is referencing the inevitable grief that will now be associated with protecting and rearing offspring after the Curse.

Job was simply saying, “My suffering is the result of original sin and the curse – nothing more.”

Eliphaz aligns with Job’s perspective in his previous comments. “Yet man is born into trouble, as the sparks fly upward (5:7).” He follows up with a similar recognition, “What is man, that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (15:14)?”

Bildad offered the same appreciation for the initial context of Job’s circumstances. “How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of woman (25:4)?”

Job even expresses knowledge of the original sin, references the catalyst, and makes personal application. “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquities in my bosom: Did I fear a great multitude…or the contempt of families…that I kept silence, and went not out of the door (31:33,34)?”

This record makes it quite clear that Job and those with whom he associated had a coherent appreciation for the history of mankind as it was preserved from the beginning and eventually compiled by Moses. Either their knowledge was based on an indirect passing down through oral tradition or they had a more direct access to the Sacred Annals in some way. Regardless, the references cannot be considered coincidental.

The next article in this series will address the chronicled recognition of a hydrological cataclysm that had rocked the earth only a few short centuries prior.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Bill Nye – The Unscientific Guy

Last week several friends e-mailed me about a YouTube video-release featuring public television personality, Bill Nye. Many of you may remember his PBS spots known as “Bill Nye – The Science Guy.” His science lessons were brilliantly laced with wit and humor disarming the unsuspecting, after-school audience into embracing one more academic session for the day. The programs always left me fascinated with science and more inquisitive about the world around me.

You might imagine how disappointed I was viewing his recent video entitled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children.” It was difficult to watch for two reasons. First, he was no longer the jovial, master of timing that I came to appreciate as a teenager. In fact, his quasi-coherent rant portrayed a very annoyed and even, to a degree, agitated man.

And secondly, there was nothing scientific about his claim. Dr. Nye used his iconic status of champion of the scientific method as a warrantable basis for a philosophical diatribe against creationism. As is often the case with such attempts, he exposed the weaknesses of his very best objections.

Speaking of the long-term, national dangers that creationism poses, “The Science Guy” said, “The United Sates is where most of the innovation still happens. People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe that, it holds everybody back…really.”

He must be referencing the way Johann Kepler held back the field of astronomy, or Isaac Newton held back physics, or Carolus Linnaeus held back biology, or Louis Pasteur held back organic chemistry, or Gregory Mendel held back genetics.

In a follow-up radio interview with Scott Paulsen, a popular morning personality on WDVE in Pittsburgh, Bill reiterated his belief that “creationism stifles innovation and ingenuity.”

“Without innovation you’re not going to have jobs,” he explained. “Without science, you’re not going to have innovation – engineers and scientists. Creationism is not going to be able to help you with that. There is no information there.”

In the course of his lament, he mentioned several inventors and scientists from America’s strong, innovative past, failing to realize that half of them acknowledged God as the Creator of all things.

In the YouTube video he warns, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. The idea of deep time, of this [sic] billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.”

Skeptics love to accuse creationists of not believing in evolution and then cite evidences of horizontal change (based on genetic predisposition for adaptability) within organisms. This type of change is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands and is scientifically verifiable. The problem comes at the point of the philosophical leap that proposes vertical change (based on the belief that anything is possible with enough time) from one organism into a distinct, new creature on the conceptual Tree of Life.

Those who regard the Genesis account as historical, embrace adaptation and speciation within the established boundaries of Creation’s Orchard of Life, with each trunk representing a distinct “kind.” So, in that sense, we do “believe in evolution,” but the opposition is certainly not inclined to debate within the frame of a clear definition of terms.

I’m glad that Bill Nye refers to “deep time” as an idea, because that is the extent of its legitimacy. According to Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould (Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle), “When we finally discard the empiricist myth that turned (James) Hutton into his opposite (a field-work fraud), we can properly seek the discovery of deep time in those a priori concepts that Hutton viewed as the rational basis for his or any theory of the earth. He did not find deep time or cyclicity in rocks…deep time is the essential ingredient of unbounded cycles, established by logical necessity prior to confirmation in the field.”

So while (Charles) Lyell expanded on Hutton’s work under the assumption that it was genuinely empirical, Charles Darwin discovered in Lyell’s work (Principles of Geology) the deep time that would be required to lend credibility to his theory of the transmutation of species and his phylogenic “tree of life.”

In each case, observation was preceded by theory. Data was contextualized by assumptions. Science has not proven “deep time”; but proponents of evolution still embrace this notion as an indisputable, doctrinal authority (see Scripturosity articles “Deep Time Warp” Part 1 & Part 2).

The gulf between evolutionism and creationism is not over data or discovery. The great chasm is conceptual. Creationists approach the evidence on display around the world from the philosophical axiom of the ancient, Sacred Text. What most evolutionists don’t acknowledge is that they, similarly, have a contextual starting point – deep time. Any forensic summation of the evidence is inevitably filtered through the philosophical bias of the observer. The truth is representatives from both worldviews can advance good science. One’s origins paradigm does not influence their work in the science lab or the inventor’s bench.

Rather than “untenable” or “inconsistent,” the biblical worldview draws tremendous clarity to our observations and reveals unequivocal purpose for our existence (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). Perhaps Bill Nye’s vexation with creationism is more about the validity that any physical compatibility might convey on the spiritual lessons and prophetic claims of its documented source than anything else. From the standpoint of implied, personal vulnerability, his sense of alarm makes perfect sense.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Majesty in the Mundane

Rather than ignorantly credit observable, geophysical phenomena to “mother nature,” the book of Job makes it very clear that the processes to which the earth is subject have been sovereignly assigned by the universe’s Great Engineer.

“God understandeth the way thereof, and knoweth the place thereof. For He looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven; To make the weight for the winds; and He weigheth the waters by measure. When He made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder: Then did He see it, and declare it; He prepared it, yea and searched it out. And unto man He said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding (28:23-28).”

Dr. Henry Morris offers the following in this regard in his book, The Remarkable Record of Job.

“Throughout Job we…find a strong emphasis on the dependability of the laws and constants now controlling God’s completed creation. Unlike other ancient books, Job has no hints of magical acts or any other occult practices. There are not any divine miracles recorded (except for Job’s eventual healing, if that is considered miraculous), although both Job and Elihu mentioned their faith in the future resurrection of the body (Job 19:26; 33:28). This is especially surprising in view of the many miracles recorded in the Mosaic writings of the Pentateuch. Job records one demonic visitation, as well as God’s personal revelation (Job 4:12-21; 38:1-42:8), but throughout the book there is repeated emphasis on the reliability of God’s providential – rather than miraculous – control of his creation.”

While many rationalize their spiritual disillusionment and dullness with the absence of the “spectacular” in their lives, the book of Job underlines God’s presence in the “mundane.”

Why are we so dependent upon the sensational to satisfy our craving for the presence of God?

The early chapters of the book of Job make it clear that the spectacular events that changed Job’s life were discharged by Satan. Was Job privy to the heavenly dialogue and grand experiment that opened the floodgates to his suffering? Of course not.

Despite the ferocity of the extraordinary and the hush from heaven, Job remained convinced of God’s presence and providence. “But He knoweth the way that I take…and performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with Him (23:10,14).”

How could Job say this? From where did he draw his certainty? Though “He (God) holdeth back the face of His throne (26:9),” Job found evidences of God’s engagement all around him. He saw God in the deep, dark magnificence of the night sky (26:7), in the brilliant hydrologic maintenance of the post-Flood world (26:8), in the uncompromised bounds of the post-Flood oceans (reflecting his knowledge of God’s promise to Noah – Gen. 9:11), and in the purposeful placement of and tidings in the stars (26:13 – particularly the “crooked serpent” known today as Draco the Dragon who’s head is interestingly about to be crushed by the club of Hercules).

Job was saying, “Despite heaven’s silence (v.9), nature’s evidences satisfy my search for God’s presence. Lo, these are parts of His ways: but how little a portion is heard of Him (26:14)? Yet, it is a portion! I may not understand everything that results under His governance, but these evidences testify of His presence and sustain my faith.”

Of the 6,000 years represented in Scripture, the moments of miraculous intervention can be encapsulated into a mere 3% of earth history (Creation, Moses, Joshua, Elijah/Elisha, Jesus, the Apostles). Because of the immediate and historical impact of such events that defied natural law, much of our attention is committed to them. The overwhelming majority of the sacred timeline, however, defaults to a grossly unspectacular history. Sovereignty is not amplified in the supernatural, but rather in the mundane. Yes, God is in the miraculous and we should be in awe of His creative power. But God is also in the maintenance processes decreed to preserve this planet through its useful tenure.

The relative absence of divine spectacle throughout history necessitates a faith that is sustained in God’s unimpressive disclosure of Himself in both special (Scripture) and general (nature) revelation. Unfortunately, some scholars have spoiled faith by presenting “inconsistencies” between God’s Word and God’s world. Any proposed disparity between the Word of God and the work of God is because of a philosophical misplacement of eminence.

Many Christian academics agree with the English politician and philosopher Francis Bacon (a contemporary of Galileo), who promoted nature as the requisite context to unlocking the truth of Scripture. In his 1605 book entitled Advancement of Learning, Francis Bacon made this statement.

“For our Saviour saith, ‘You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God;’ laying before us two books or volumes of study, if we will be secured from error; first the Scriptures, revealing the will of God, and then the creatures expressing his power; whereof the latter is key to the former: not only opening our understanding to conceive the true sense of the Scriptures, by the general notions of reason and rules of speech; but chiefly opening our belief, in drawing us into a due meditation of the omnipotency of  God, which is chiefly signed and engraven upon his works.”

The problem with this position is it presupposes that humanity’s fallen nature will be able to rightly interpret fallen nature.

A superior axiom is the one presented by Andrew Kulikovski in a 2005 Technical Journal article entitled “Scripture and General Revelation.”

“The scriptures, unlike general revelation, are presented in the words of ordinary human language…they have a perspicuity (clear expression, easy understanding) that is not found in the book of nature. In a way, therefore, the Scriptures are like a verbal commentary on the dimly perceived sign language of creation. For this reason, the special revelation of Scripture should always take priority over both general revelation in the natural world and the conclusions of modern science. The revelation of Scripture is the filter through which all else should be interpreted.”

Scripture provides interpretive clarity for our observations of the natural world and nature is a signpost pointing to the truth of Scripture. King David understood this relationship when he penned the 19^th Psalm (vv.1-11). As the observed regularities of nature imply a universe maintained within structural confines, so is the reliability of the Lord’s written Testimony.

Another Psalmist made a similar connection in Chapter 119 (vv.89-91). The constant governance of natural law amplifies the consistency of Divine Charter.

Regularity in nature is not only a fundamental premise of modern science it also offers illustrative validity to every ordinance “settled in heaven.”

• The Law of Faith – Romans 3:23-28 (Faith activates justification)
• The Law of Sowing and Reaping – Galatians 6:7 (You procure what you plant)
• The Law of Liberty – James 1:25 (The choice to administer God’s principles liberates the believer in appreciable blessings)
• The Law of Sin and Death – Romans 5:12 (Death is the result of original sin and is the inevitable appointment of all mankind)

Because God did create, curse, and destroy “In the beginning” as recounted in the book of Genesis, the details of redemption and resurrection and restoration in the pages that follow are thereby esteemed authentic and authoritative!

When God finally breaks His silence, the answer to Job’s physical loss and suffering was not an explanation, but a revelation of Himself; first in a brief detail of earth’s spectacular creative and catastrophic past and then in a thorough exposition of His subtle superintendence over His creation.

While God has the power and genius to absolutely “wow” us into submission, the impression given by His response to Job is that He prefers attentive recognition in the mundane. The intimation is that God wants to be pursued, discovered, and appreciated. If we recognize God’s hand in sovereign maintenance, then we can see Him every day and react to His presence in humility and praise. If we are only looking for Him in the sensational, we may miss Him and His pleasure altogether.

May we reach the fresh awareness of Job when he prayed, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee (42:5).”

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Basic Measurement (Part 1)

Carbon dating is a form of measurement classified as radiometric. Radiometric dating is a scientific technique used to estimate the ages of rocks and fossils. The reason that this method of measurement is important to the believer is because most lab results reflect ages that are in profound contrast to the history of earth and humanity established in the biblical timeline. Conversely, carbon dating also raises serious suspicion regarding the accuracy of the assigned epochs of the geologic column. Let’s see if we can add some clarity to the measurement muddle.

All matter is made up of atoms – the basic building blocks of all things. Atoms are constructed of smaller particles known as protons, neutrons, and electrons. The nucleus of each atom is made up of the protons and neutrons at the center, while its outer layers consist of the electrons.

It is the number of protons in the nucleus that gives the atomic signature to each element. As an example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all nitrogen atoms have 7 protons, and each oxygen atom has 8. However, within the nucleus of a given isotope (established proton signature) can be a variant number of neutrons. It is the combination of both the protons and the neutrons that determines the mass of each atom.

An atom is considered “stable” when the number of its nuclear protons and neutrons are equal. Since there are 6 protons in a carbon atom, its stable form has 6 neutrons giving it a mass of 12 and the common reference of Carbon-12. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope because it has 8 neutrons to its 6 protons. Unstable isotopes, such as Carbon-14 (also known as radiocarbon), are always seeking nuclear equilibrium (that is an equal proton/neutron count) and this is accomplished by a process known as “radioactive decay.” Radioactive decay demands that the original element upon which the action takes place will become a different element. In the case of Carbon-14, the “beta decay” process (signified by an ejected electron) essentially causes it to lose a neutron and gain a proton changing it to the stable element Nitrogen-14.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t all the Carbon-14 atoms be stabilized into Nitrogen-14? Earth’s biosphere is never without Carbon-14 because it is continuously being added to the atmosphere through high-impact, atomic collisions with cosmic rays. The most prominent element in our atmosphere is nitrogen making it the most likely to be impacted by these violent intrusions. These high energy bombardments separate some of the nitrogen atoms from one of their protons and replace them with a neutron creating a new Carbon-14 atom.

The logical question becomes, “How does Carbon-14 become relevant in dating measurements?” These newly transformed radiocarbon atoms now behave similarly to the stable carbon isotopes (Carbon-12) and combine with oxygen (the second most plentiful element in the atmosphere) to form Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide has a proportionate distribution of radioactive and non-radioactive carbon atoms that indiscriminately enter earth’s biosphere (regions occupied by living organisms) through photosynthesis (a process critical to the existence of earth’s plant covering). With radiocarbon in the food chain, all creatures (including humans) have trace levels of Carbon-14 within their physical composition. As long as an organism is alive, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive carbon ratio with its stable (Carbon-12) counterpart. But once a creature dies or a plant fades (see Scripturosity article “Planting Seeds of Doubt”) it no longer can add molecular carbon to its structure. This is point at which the measurement starts.

Scientists are able to measure the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in an organic subject by using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer. As time goes by and as the natural process of radioactive decay takes place, less of the radio-carbon will exist reducing the ratio with its stable counterpart. The standard expression used to communicate the rate of radioactive decay is “half-life.” This is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample. While the decay is not simultaneous, half of the radioactive atoms will be reduced within a specific and consistent timeframe. Scientific consensus places the half-life of Carbon-14 at 5,730 years. So this means after 5,730 years, a given sample of ancient organic matter will only have half of the Carbon-14 atoms that it had at the moment it ceased to interact with earth’s biosphere. In 11,460 years those remaining will be halved again. When you halve the percentage of radiocarbon 10 times (57,300 years), there are virtually no unstable atoms left to decay.

This places the effective measurement range of Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon) Dating at around 60,000 years (though some would argue a maximum effectiveness around 100,000 years) creating quite the dilemma for those whose worldview posits ancient earth strata separated by hundreds of millions of years. Carbon dating discovery of not-so-ancient organics within assigned deep-time sediment layers is ever giving heartburn to the hardcore zealots of naturalism.

But the obvious quandary for the Biblicist is that much of the carbon dating data still bears out ages which are radically conflicted with the history presented in our Premier Text. Part 2 of this short article series will address this informational impasse and offer a rational reconciliation scenario for the believer’s apologetics toolbox.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Innocent Suffering and a Loving God (Part 1)

One of life’s most profound paradoxes and faith’s most obtrusive stumbling blocks is the reality of innocent suffering. How is the rational seeker to intellectually reconcile the cruel injustices of this world with the loving, just, merciful God of the Bible?

Charles Darwin candidly revealed in his autobiography the pivotal role that this inquiry played in the development of his worlview (p. 75).

“A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”

Daily, from the various news outlets, we are reminded of the pain and misery that is inherent to living. We see children from African nations with obvious signs of starvation. We see families changed forever in the blink of an eye when an impaired or distracted driver crosses the center-line. We see entire third-world villages slaughtered because of racial or religious bigotry.

Both in sincerity and skepticism the question has been asked, “How could a loving God allow such suffering?”

In order to rightly assimilate such a delicate inquiry, there are a few acknowledgements that are crucial.

1) The conditions under which earth’s inhabitants currently live do not reflect the original design and intent of the Creator.

Following His creative finale on Day 6, the Record says that God took inventory of all that He had made and concluded that it was “very good (Gen.1:31).”

The word translated “good” in English is literally defined by Hebrew scholars (Brown, Driver, and Briggs) to mean excellent. They assign a literal definition of the word translated “very” to be exceedingly.

Omniscient, omnipotent, Perfection qualified the 6 day expression of His eternal genius as “exceedingly excellent.” The most natural and logical conclusion based on this summary is that death and suffering had not yet been permitted access.

“And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good…”

Henry Morris writes in his book Many Infallible Truths, “The best way to understand God’s original purpose in creation is to study the final consummation of that purpose when all things have been reconciled.”

We understand from Peter’s letters and John’s revelation that the present earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:7) and a new earth with a restored, Day 2 atmosphere (Revelation 21:1) will be introduced.

Isaiah offers some prophetic hindsight into the “very good” original creation with a look ahead to the ecosystem of the new earth (11:6-9).

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

God’s original and eternal favor toward man above the rest of creation is amplified in the recorded vision of the Apostle John. “And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God (Rev. 21:3).”

This prophetic telescope gives us a good view of the natural harmony and the unimpeded fellowship that characterized the original creation.

This is what God intended. This was His original design.

When Adam sinned, everything changed. God was forced, by His character, to disassociate with this debase intrusion that defined humanity’s new reality. God’s response to sin testified further of his favor toward mankind with an ingenious plan of restoration that would preserve every detailed facet of and satisfy every intricate demand of His glorious character. We are currently living in a sovereign detour necessitated by the Creator’s intolerance of sin, but initiated because of His desire to bring Eden’s fellowship full circle.

The purpose of Scripture is to draw mankind back into the fellowship for which he was created. The theme is redemption. The details are neither comprehensive nor peripheral. Every fact, feature, and philosophy carries reclamation relevance.

Beginning with the Promise put forth at the Serpent’s garden sentencing (3:15), the Bible remarkably stays on point – the product of human birth would defeat the Deceiver and diffuse the Curse. The Old Testament is the forecast; the New Testament is the fruition.

Since the Curse, many have suffered and all have died. The ancients may have lived nearly 1,000 years, but they all died. In the context of purpose as represented in the Genesis record, death is only the passage through which Adam and the Sethite line necessarily crossed to realize the fellowship that was forfeited in the flesh. One day Adam and the whole of his race, who valued the promise of the Creator, will realize the terrestrial perfection of the original creation in what the book of the Revelation calls the “new earth.” “Oh death, where is thy sting?” A belief in a literal, historical Genesis will liberate the believer to a life of bold purpose. Though death and suffering is our history and our heritage, it is certainly not our end.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: The Dimensions of Noah’s Ark – Are They Feasible?

The architectural mandate given to Noah in Genesis detailing the dimensions for the Ark simply reads like this. “And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of; The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits (6:15).”

Whether Noah’s sons chose only to journal a general, abbreviated description of the instructional blueprint, or Moses pared it in editing (see Scripturosity article series “Who Wrote Genesis Part 1 or Part 2”), or Noah readied himself by researching the construction of sea-worthy vessels so as to need little more (as intimated in John K. Reed’s fascinating novel, The Coming Wrath) the preserved details of the ark construct are very minimal (6:14-16).

Based on our understanding of the ancient unit of measure known as the cubit (see Scripturosity article “Noah’s Ark (Part 1)”), the dimensions can be assigned as follows.

Length: 495’ – 515’

Breadth: 82’ – 86’

Height: 49’ – 51’

When these dimensions are coupled with the material mandate of gopher wood (v.14), those with a predisposition to object amusingly scorn the prospect. What protestors may not be aware of is that ancient Greek craftsmen built a 425’ wooden ship (Tessarakonteres) in the 3^rd century BC that is recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest human-powered vessel in history. She was a true marvel of architecture and construction accommodating 400 sailors, 2,850 men-at-arms, and 4,000 rowers. This colossal craft and the biblical Ark would have only been possible using the ancient maritime method of ship building that overlapped the outer planking using a “mortise and tenon” construction technique. Up until just recently, the earliest dated discovery using this method was from the 14^th century BC – the Uluburun wreckage off the coast of Turkey (British Museum Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology). Now, following a discovery off a receded Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, the date of this technical practice must be moved back several hundred years to the 19^th century BC. In a June 2011 Discover magazine article entitled “Egypt’s Lost Fleet,” Andrew Curry begins, “Recently, a series of remarkable discoveries on a desolate stretch of the Red Sea coast has settled the debate (concerning the location of a mysterious land known as Punt), proving once and for all that the masterful building skills of the ancient Egyptians applied to oceangoing ships as well as to pyramids.” Maritime archeologist, Cheryl Ward commissioned with the reconstruction offered, “One of the features of Egyptian architecture is overbuilding. You can see similar safety features in the construction of these ships.”

The article continues with the following remarkable description of the find. “Ward has determined that unlike modern vessels, which are built around a strong internal frame, the Egyptian ship was essentially one giant hull. The curious construction meant that the craft required much larger timbers for strength. The wood also was cut thicker, with enough extra width to compensate for damage by shipworms. Some of the ship parts preserved…are more than a foot thick.

The Egyptian ships were also unique in that they were held together with mortise-and-tenon joints, tab-and-slot fittings that needed no metal fasteners and could be taken apart and put back together again. For added strength, the individual timbers were carved with curves that nested into adjacent parts, a little like puzzle pieces.”

The chronological assignment of this discovery places the construction approximately 500 years following the biblical Flood offering logically that the practical template would have easily been imported from the pre-Flood era through the survivors. Perhaps the “overbuilding” claim was not a technical phenomenon unique to the Egyptians, but rather a construction practice handed down through the generations as the prototypical model from the Ark of Noah.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 11)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #12 – Something cannot be created out of nothing, say scientists. Therefore, from where did the material for the Big Bang come? From where did the first life forms that provided the raw materials for evolution originate? Stanley Miller’s creation of amino acids out of an inorganic “soup” and other biogenic molecules is not the creation of life.

 

As part of his elaboration, Dr. Shermer admits, “Science may not be equipped to answer certain “ultimate”-type questions, such as what there was before the beginning of the universe or what time it was before time began or where the matter for the Big Bang came from. So far these have been philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones and therefore have not been a part of science.”

Rationally speaking then, naturalism – the belief that all things find context in natural causation – is contradictory and illogical. At some point in the inescapable retrospection the question must be asked, “But where did that come from?” Eventually, there comes a point where every answer is religious.

The problem with using Stanley Miller’s experiment as a model for biogenesis is that he started with various material elements under controlled, laboratory conditions and manipulated the application of energy with calculated precision. How does that represent the evolutionary mantra of life’s random, spontaneous appearance from abiotic elements?

Dr. Shermer does offer the disclaimer that, “Stanley Miller never claimed to have created life, just some of its building blocks.” Let’s go ahead and concede that point to Shermer for the moment (even though intelligence was applied to generate the “blocks”). This proposition is like requiring a random, mountain of bricks to somehow become the Biltmore Estate!

The truth is such contemplations are extremely frustrating for naturalists. A typical example of the high-brow evasion at this point in the discussion can be found in Philip Whitfield’s book, Life: Evolution Explained where he assures the readers that “the precise details are not crucial.”

Seriously? That is the foundation of the dogmatic assertions of evolutionary origins? And my axiomatic adherence to a preserved, ancient document full of precise details that find harmonious context within all the scientific disciplines is considered ludicrous?

Another interesting observation is that while Dr. Shermer recognizes that these are “philosophical or religious questions…and therefore have not been a part of science,” the scientific community has not done a very good job of discouraging the promotion of ideological speculation (see Scripturosity article “Intellectual Invention”). From the classroom to the newsstand, science is endorsed as the only rational approach to our existence. In November of 2006, NewScientist magazine published a 50^th Anniversary Special Edition with the following message boldly positioned in the center of the cover in large print – “THE BIG QUESTIONS-Life, Death, Reality, Free Will, and the Theory of Everything.” I wonder if anyone other than biblical creationists reads Shermer’s books.

My question to Dr. Shermer would be, “If absolute origins are beyond the capacity of observational science to root out, then why the desperate opposition to specific claims of a supernatural Agent?” Why not, likewise, oppose the message of his “shamans of scientism” who are faithfully “proffering naturalistic answers…providing spiritual sustenance” and meeting the philosophical needs of those rejecting the Sacred Record (see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 7”)? That’s not scientific either.

Perhaps the issue is not about being scientific or even being religious. We say “God” and they say “matter.” Creationists can be scientific and naturalists can be religious. The real objection is highlighted in a prophetic dictation of David found in the opening stanza of Psalm 2.

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

David asked the same question that is under the breath of so many Christians today. The zealous defiance is to the point of absurdity prompting the sincere inquiry, “Why is the opposition so fierce, even to the extent of plotting against sound reason?”

The passage reveals the crux of the resistance in a contrast between Earth’s culture and Earth’s Creator. “His anointed” is a reference to the deliverer who would redeem creation from its Curse (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). The prophecy unveils the exception of the creature to the notion of accountability or the need to be rescued. “Let us break their bands…and cast away their cords.”

Oh the twisted thinking that turns our Redeemer into our rival.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 9)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #10 – “The Bible is the written Word of God…all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true. The great Flood described in Genesis was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. We are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind” (in Eve and Harrold 1991, p.55).

 

Obviously, Dr. Shermer is quoting a Christian scientist here rather than fabricating one of his own “straw-man” assertions. His objection is that “such a statement of belief is clearly religious.” He then contradicts several of his previous arguments by saying, “This does not make it wrong.” This is what I like to call a high-brow bone toss. High profile naturalists realize the importance of maintaining a measure of credibility and civility with the faithful masses. In this attempt, they often back themselves into an irrational corner. The logical law of contradiction requires that an assertion of this content and magnitude be either true or false. It cannot be both.

He continues by protesting, “One cannot make the events in any text historically and scientifically true by fiat, only by testing the evidence.” The intimation is that creationists are impaired by a devout bias thereby tainting any subsequent interpretation of plain evidence. As pointed out earlier in this series, neither of the competing paradigms are without faithful, leading assumptions (see Scripturosity articles “Answering Skeptics – Parts 1 & Part 2”).

An unapologetic witness to this fact are the remarkably candid words of evolutionary biologist, geneticist, and author Richard Lewontin as quoted from a 1997 article in The New York Review entitled “Billions and Billions of Demons.”

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated ‘Just So’ stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

While it is not my intention to imply that Richard Lewontin speaks for all scientists, it is does appear that he is attempting to present his position as consensus within the scientific community. He is positing a zealous, blind-faith guardianship of naturalism despite its “patent absurdity” even to the point of shamelessly engineering the investigation.

Lewontin understands that there are only two possibilities when it comes to origins. Either the cause is completely natural or the cause is beyond natural explanation. If the forces of nature are insufficient, then explanation must logically default to possibilities that are beyond the observation of current processes. This is the unacceptable foot of the Divine that must be prevented access to the door of human intellect. And they say that we are the religious ones (for a clear definition of religion see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 7”)?

It is quite clear that the root issue in the debate over origins is and has always been the Word of God and the compulsion of the natural man to distance himself from it. If the opening record documenting the history of the world can be discredited, then subsequent passages teaching a personal accountability to a sovereign Creator are marginalized. No special creation…no accountability…no accountability…no judgment…no judgment…no vulnerability.

Note the following quotes directed at the world’s premier text and those that faithfully regard it.

“The overturning of the catastrophist, Biblical view has been one of the major achievements of modern science (1984 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting).”

“Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may, in the end, be our greatest contribution to civilization (Dr. Steven Weinburg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, quoted in the New York Times, 11/21/06).”

The crusade must be directed at the Word of God. If the history recorded in Genesis is true, then the moral and spiritual lessons that follow carry significant weight. If God could judge the world once, he could do it again.

“For this they (scoffers) are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, the earth standing out of the water and in the water (Day 3 of Creation; Genesis 1:9,10). Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water (Genesis Flood; 7:11, 19) perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now (contrasted with the world than then was), by the same word (the Word that created and judged in Genesis) are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:5-7).”

For further inquiry into our purpose and divine expectation, see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message.”

Read Full Post »